Shearar Kirstin A, Colloca Christopher J, White Horace L
Chiropractic Department, Durban Institute of Technology, Durban, South Africa.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2005 Sep;28(7):493-501. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2005.07.006.
To investigate the effect of instrument-delivered compared with traditional manual-delivered thrust chiropractic adjustments in the treatment of sacroiliac joint syndrome.
Prospective, randomized, comparative clinical trial. Sixty patients with sacroiliac syndrome were randomized into two groups of 30 subjects. Each subject received 4 chiropractic adjustments over a 2-week period and was evaluated at 1-week follow-up. One group received side-posture, high-velocity, low-amplitude chiropractic adjustments; the other group received mechanical-force, manually-assisted chiropractic adjustments using an Activator Adjusting Instrument (Activator Methods International, Ltd, Phoenix, Ariz).
No significant differences between groups were noted at the initial consultation for any of the outcome variables. Statistically significant improvements were observed in both groups from the first to third, third to fifth, and first to fifth consultations for improvements (P < .001) in mean numerical pain rating scale 101 (group 1, 49.1-23.4; group 2, 48.9-22.5), revised Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (group 1, 37.4-18.5; group 2, 36.6-15.1), orthopedic rating score (group 1, 7.6-0.6; group 2, 7.5-0.8), and algometry measures (group 1, 4.8-6.5; group 2, 5.0-6.8) for first to last visit for both groups.
The results indicate that a short regimen of either mechanical-force, manually-assisted or high-velocity, low-amplitude chiropractic adjustments were associated with a beneficial effect of a reduction in pain and disability in patients diagnosed with sacroiliac joint syndrome. Neither mechanical-force, manually-assisted nor high-velocity, low-amplitude adjustments were found to be more effective than the other in the treatment of this patient population.
探讨器械辅助推拿调整与传统手法推拿调整相比,在治疗骶髂关节综合征中的效果。
前瞻性、随机、对照临床试验。60例骶髂关节综合征患者被随机分为两组,每组30例。每位受试者在2周内接受4次脊椎按摩调整,并在随访1周时进行评估。一组接受侧卧位、高速度、低幅度的脊椎按摩调整;另一组使用激活器调整仪器(Activator Methods International, Ltd, Phoenix, Ariz)接受机械力、手动辅助的脊椎按摩调整。
在初次会诊时,两组在任何结局变量上均未观察到显著差异。两组在第一次至第三次、第三次至第五次以及第一次至第五次会诊时,平均数字疼痛评分量表101(第1组,49.1 - 23.4;第2组,48.9 - 22.5)、修订的奥斯威斯利下腰痛残疾问卷(第1组,37.4 - 18.5;第2组,36.6 - 15.1)、骨科评分(第1组,7.6 - 0.6;第2组,7.5 - 0.8)以及两组从首次就诊到最后就诊的痛觉测量(第1组,4.8 - 6.5;第2组,5.0 - 6.8)方面均有统计学意义的改善(P <.001)。
结果表明,对于诊断为骶髂关节综合征的患者,短期进行机械力、手动辅助或高速度、低幅度的脊椎按摩调整,均与疼痛减轻和功能障碍改善的有益效果相关。在治疗该患者群体时,未发现机械力、手动辅助调整和高速度、低幅度调整中的任何一种比另一种更有效。